Deputy Engineer (O And M) vs Neeta Piyush Gandhi
2021 Latest Caselaw 10 Guj

             C/SCA/16774/2020                                     ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.                          16774 of 2020

=======================================================
               DEPUTY ENGINEER (O AND M)
                         Versus
            NEETA PIYUSH GANDHI & 1 other(s)
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                                Date : 04/01/2021

                                      ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief/s:

"(A) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to accept this petition.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction in the form of writ of certiorari for the purpose of calling record and proceedings from the file of Respondent No.2 for Appeal No.22/2017­2018 and further be pleased to quash and set aside order dated 30th April, 2018 passed by the learned Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent No.2.

                  C/SCA/16774/2020                                       ORDER




      (C)           YOUR         LORDSHIP           be     pleased      to       stay

operation and implementation of judgment and order dated 30th April, 2018 passed by Respondent No.2 in the matter of Appeal Case No.22/2017­2018 pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition."

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred the averments made in the petition and submitted that respondent No.1 is a consumer of the petitioner. On 04.09.2017, the installation of the respondent No.1 was checked by IC Squad, Surat and at that time, representative of the respondent No.1 was present. Thereafter, the checking sheet was prepared. As per the said checking sheet, it was found that on ground floor, there is one A to Z spa and on first floor, there is an office of yarn broker. Learned advocate thereafter contended that petitioner found that the said consumer was using electricity supply given for the category of RGPY (Residential General Purpose Use) for commercial use and accordingly, after making preliminary assessment, 22.450 KW is found to have been used unauthorizedly by the said consumer. Accordingly, on 08.09.2017, provisional supplementary bill was issued to the respondent No.1 for an amount of Rs.66,474/­ as per the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Aggrieved by the said provisional supplementary bill, respondent No.1 has submitted her objections. Thereafter, on 29.09.2017, final supplementary bill for an amount of Rs.66,474/­ was issued to the respondent No.1.

                C/SCA/16774/2020                                           ORDER




2.     Learned        advocate           for           the        petitioner         further

submitted that aggrieved by the aforesaid final bill, respondent No.1 has preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 after deposit of 50% of the bill amount. The respondent No.2 was pleased to quash and set aside the supplementary bill dated 29.09.2017 issued by the petitioner and therefore present petition is filed.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.2 is contrary to the provisions of Supply Code, 2015. The Appellate Authority has committed an error in concluding that the electricity duty, having once been recovered, may not be recovered again. He, therefore, urged that the impugned order dated 30th April, 2018 passed by the Appellate Authority - respondent No.2 herein be quashed and set aside.

4. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that respondent No.1 is the consumer of the petitioner. After checking the installation of the respondent No.1, petitioner found that the consumer has used the electricity supply, which was granted for residential use, for commercial use and accordingly, provisional supplementary bill was issued, which culminated into final bill. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid bill, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the

C/SCA/16774/2020 ORDER

respondent No.2. The said appeal came to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the supplementary bill issued by the petitioner.

5. I have also perused the reasoning given by the Appellate Authority while quashing and setting aside the supplementary bill. From the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it emerges that the Appellate Authority has considered the submissions of the present petitioner as well as the consumer and after considering the submissions canvassed by the parties, the Appellate Authority has also considered the provisions contained in Section 7.41 of the Supply Code 2015 and thereafter quashed the supplementary bill issued by the present petitioner to the respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to issue revised supplementary bill to the consumer - respondent No.1 for the differential amount i.e. after deducting the amount of fixed charge, energy charge and 15% amount of electricity as per RGPU tariff which the consumer - respondent No.1 has already paid from the amount that may be assessed as per the direction issued in the impugned order.

6. Thus, this Court is of the view that no error is committed by the respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order and therefore no interference is required in the present petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

                                                       (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)





                   C/SCA/16774/2020                   ORDER


LAVKUMAR J JANI